Northeast U.S. digs out from yet another history-making snowstorm

The remarkable Post-Christmas blizzard of 2010 has ended for the United States, as the storm has trekked northeastward into Canada. The blizzard dropped epic amounts of snow during its rampage up the U.S. Northeast coast Sunday and Monday, with an incredible 32" falling in Rahway, New Jersey, about 15 miles southwest of New York City. The highest populated areas of New Jersey received over two feet of snow, including the Newark Airport, which received 24.1". Snowfall amounts were slightly lower across New York City. The blizzard of 2010 dumped 20.0" inches on New York City's Central Park, making it the 6th largest snowstorm for the city in recorded history, and the second top-ten snowstorm this year.

Figure 1. Scene from Brooklyn, New York after the Post-Christmas blizzard of 2010. Image credit: Wunderphotographer AK2NY.

Remarkably, New York City has had four of its top-ten snowfalls in the past decade (highlighted in the list below.) According to the National Weather Service, the top ten snowstorms on record for New York City's Central Park since 1869 should now read:

Newark's 24.2" was one of that city's top-ten snowstorms of all-time, and the 20.1" that fell on Atlantic City, NJ was the city's second largest snowfall in history. Atlantic City's three biggest snowstorms have all occurred in the past ten years:

Philadelphia, PA picked up 12.4", the city's fourth one-foot plus snowstorm in just over a year--a remarkable string of storms, considering the city has had just 24 such snowfalls in history, since 1884. According to phillyweather.net, the latest snowstorm brought Philadelphia's 2010 snowfall for the calendar year to 67.3", breaking the mark for snowiest year ever (previous record: 57.0" in 1978.)

There's a great 40-second time-lapse video of 32 inches of snow accumulating at Belmar, NJ.

Figure 2. The annual average number of snowstorms with a 6 inch (15.2 cm) or greater accumulation, from the years 1901 - 2001. A value of 0.1 means an average of one 6+ inch snowstorm every ten years. Image credit: Changnon, S.A., D. Changnon, and T.R. Karl, 2006, Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States, J. Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 45, 8, pp. 1141-1155, DOI: 10.1175/JAM2395.1.

An unusual number of top-ten snowstorms for the Northeast in recent yearsThe Northeast has seen an inordinate number of top-ten snowstorms in the past ten years, raising the question of whether this is due to random chance or a change in the climate. A study by Houston and Changnon (2009) on the top ten heaviest snows on record for each of 121 major U.S. cities showed no upward or downward trend in these very heaviest snowstorms during the period 1948 - 2001. It would be interesting to see if they repeated their study using data from the past decade if the answer would change. As I stated in my blog post, The United States of Snow in February, bigger snowstorms are not an indication that global warming is not occurring. The old adage, "it's too cold to snow", has some truth to it, and there is research supporting the idea that the average climate in the U.S. is colder than optimal to support the heaviest snowstorms. For example, Changnon et al. (2006) found that for the contiguous U.S. between 1900 - 2001, 61% - 80% of all heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches occurred during winters with above normal temperatures. The authors also found that 61% - 85% of all heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches occurred during winters that were wetter than average. The authors conclude, "a future with wetter and warmer winters, which is one outcome expected (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001), will bring more heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches than in 1901 - 2000." The authors found that over the U.S. as a whole, there had been a slight but significant increase in heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches than in 1901 - 2000. If the climate continues to warm, we should expect an increase in heavy snow events for a few decades, until the climate grows so warm that we pass the point where winter temperatures are at the optimum for heavy snow events.

I've done some other posts of interest I've done on snow and climate change over the past year:

Long term... the main upstream kicker for tonights weather is a large upper level low pressure area which has moved into the Pacific northwest. This low will move rapidly to the central rockies on Thursday and then northeast to the western Great Lakes by Friday night. A large slow moving upper level low pressure trough will extend from the low. Embedded within this trough will be a slow moving cold front which will act as a genesis area for numerous showers and thunderstorms across southeast la and southern MS Friday and Friday night. By that time there should be a good connection of deep tropical moisture into the central Gulf states. In addition...the forecast area will be in the distant right rear quadrant of a large 120 knot jet located in the Southern Plains. This upper level jet is ideally place to ensure that southeast la and southern MS will be very near the axis of a 40 knots 850 mb jet. This means there will be good low level convergence and upper level divergence in place for US.

So conditions appear to have become more favorable for a Maddox synoptic heavy rain episode to develop

new years evening. The cold front should move into the coastal waters Saturday morning where it will become stationary through Sunday. So the rain threat will continue through rest of the weekend. This pretty close to what the GFS model is projecting. However...the European model (ecmwf) model shows a much slower movement off the la and MS coast on Saturday which would mean a continued threat of more heavy rain for extreme southeast la and coastal MS. So the forecast Saturday is somewhat uncertain at this point and may need to be amended if the emcwf model turns out to be right.

* AT 758 PM CST...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE METEOROLOGISTS DETECTED A BAND OF STRONG WINDS IN EXCESS OF 60 MPH...FROM 7 MILES EAST OF HAYES TO ROCKEFELLER WILDLIFE REFUGE...MOVING EAST AT 45 MPH.

* BAND OF STRONG WINDS WILL BE NEAR... LAKE ARTHUR AND KLONDIKE BY 805 PM CST... RICEVILLE AND GUEYDAN BY 815 PM CST... PECAN ISLAND AND MORSE BY 820 PM CST... WRIGHT AND LYONS POINT BY 825 PM CST... FRESHWATER CITY AND KAPLAN BY 835 PM CST...

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

DAMAGING WINDS IN EXCESS OF 60 MPH IS POSSIBLE. STAY INDOORS...AWAY FROM WINDOWS.

Quoting jeffs713:Oh, our government is wasting away money like a drunken sailor in a bordello, don't get me wrong. It just drives me CRAZY to see people complaining about high taxes and loss of freedom, when the real problem is our elected officials wasting our tax money.

The two aren't exclusive, in fact one has a very direct effect on the other. Wish it wasn't so...

Just to pick nits.. a few posts ago you found it very helpful to extol the virtues of freedom and how it is provided by those that fight for us in the armed forces. I don't care how much of my tax dollars go to support weapon research and funding the military, I considered that money well spent.

You can hand wave the points I made and say that those things make up a small amount of our expenditures, but I purposefully, for the same of brevity kept that list short. Are you really coming in on the side that our government isn't wastefully spending our money? One only has to look at the recent bills that the lame-duck congress was trying to push through to see what I'm talking about. These runaway spending bills add up, and they take their toll.

As far as funding the study of weather and climate, I'd be just as happy with the government staying right out of that as a general principle. Everything they touch turns to a red-tape filled bureaucratic nightmare of bloated dead ends.

If the government could find a way back to solvency and stop wasting tax dollars, I might trust them again. As it stands, I don't see that happening.

Oh, our government is wasting away money like a drunken sailor in a bordello, don't get me wrong. It just drives me CRAZY to see people complaining about high taxes and loss of freedom, when the real problem is our elected officials wasting our tax money.

Quoting BtnTx:I had to restart my browser as it was messing up; I am exiting as my wife as been waiting for me to watch a movie on DVD with her; I read this blog a lot and rarely post. Note my "member since date" -- Happy News Year Eve Eve Eve (today) as I go and try to watch a movie while the power is still on during this bad weather.

Same to you...My apologies for coming on so strong. Must be all that egg nog! Best Regards.

Quoting jeffs713:Alot of this spending you mention is a very small portion of our expenditures.

Let me pull out a few extra things:- 20% of our budget (give or take a few hundred BILLION) is payments on our national debt.- We are spending $20 Billion a month in Iraq and Afganistan- Social security devours another large chunk of our annual budget (the people living off SS money are mostly elderly)- We pay for our tax cuts in deficit spending.- We refuse to pay for new experiements and satellites to understand our world more, but just *have* to cut billions in taxes.

Put simply, our priorities, on both sides of the aisle, are jacked up. Its more about playing to the lowest common denominator (or as I call it, the "dumbest possible voter") in an effort to get re-elected. Logic and sense have been thrown out the window - its all about ME ME ME now.

Pay off the national debt, and we CAN drop taxes by 20%. Or we can spend that money to further our understanding of our world (especially the weather and climate), and ourselves. But that likely won't happen in our lifetimes.

Just to pick nits.. a few posts ago you found it very helpful to extol the virtues of freedom and how it is provided by those that fight for us in the armed forces. I don't care how much of my tax dollars go to support weapon research and funding the military, I considered that money well spent.

You can hand wave the points I made and say that those things make up a small amount of our expenditures, but I purposefully, for the same of brevity kept that list short. Are you really coming in on the side that our government isn't wastefully spending our money? One only has to look at the recent bills that the lame-duck congress was trying to push through to see what I'm talking about. These runaway spending bills add up, and they take their toll.

As far as funding the study of weather and climate, I'd be just as happy with the government staying right out of that as a general principle. Everything they touch turns to a red-tape filled bureaucratic nightmare of bloated dead ends.

If the government could find a way back to solvency and stop wasting tax dollars, I might trust them again. As it stands, I don't see that happening.

Quoting Chicklit:People's emotions get in the way of dialectical exchanges, unfortunately, which is the only way we can really learn anything about each other. I understand that a lot of the reasons for how people think is cultural, but do not see why, if you really want to discuss something, you always have to talk to people who think like you do. The best way to learn stuff is to talk to somebody who doesn't think like you...anyway, not trying to run you off btwntx. My own mother has trouble talking to me sometimes!

I had to restart my browser as it was messing up; I am exiting as my wife as been waiting for me to watch a movie on DVD with her; I read this blog a lot and rarely post. Note my "member since date" -- Happy News Year Eve Eve Eve (today) as I go and try to watch a movie while the power is still on during this bad weather.

BtnTx...Please hang around.........I listen and read every post........Hell, One minute I am talking about dead rock stars, the next about Ice Cream , then about Solar Power......We all have diffrent views and opinions...Don't let it rattle your cage.I get PO'd myself.......Must be from my Star Trek days and Captain Kirk

People's emotions get in the way of dialectical exchanges, unfortunately, which is the only way we can really learn anything about each other. I understand that a lot of the reasons for how people think is cultural, but do not see why, if you really want to discuss something, you always have to talk to people who think like you do. The best way to learn stuff is to talk to somebody who doesn't think like you...anyway, not trying to run you off btwntx. My own mother has trouble talking to me sometimes!

A better idea (as with incandescent light bulbs) is to offer alternatives at attractive prices and make it easy to compare them (e.g. show how much it would cost to drive an electric car some distance as compared to a gas car).

That is exactly right. The biggest issues I see right now is many of these alternatives have either been supressed by competing corporate interests (ie: OIL), are subsidized to gain votes (corn ethanol), the infrastructure is not in place (plug-in or hydrogen cars), or simply not developed enough to gain mass-market appeal (Li-ion batteries in cars).

Quoting BtnTx:Chicklit:Words like 'all' or 'every' are a smokescreen which make for overly simplistic soundbites used to manipulate people. Why think anything through when it's all made so perfectly clear and simple?

(my quote link is currently broken - oh I am too stupid to know how to use it)Ok you win as you have me completely confused as I am the guy who just throws words around as I have no brain; I am out and will post no longer as I obviously don't have the IQ to compete with the intellectually elite that are on this blog; Scotty: Beam me Up!

Quoting weatherspawn:jeff713 you really picked a weak strawman argument there. You picked basic needs that no normal person minds paying taxes for. What you fail to address are the ridiculous spending deficits that send billions of dollars to countries that hate us, build bridges to nowhere, pay kick-backs to lawmakers for votes, send millions of dollars to dead end projects and so on and so on..

Please, if you are going to call someone out and act so self-righteous, at least be honest about the subject you are discussing.

You just cherry-picked the easiest thing to defend and went with it. If you were trying to make some kind of point here, you definitely weakened your position.

If it is perfectly reasonable to be against high taxes, especially when those tax dollars are ill used and fail to stay within a clear and defined budget.

Alot of this spending you mention is a very small portion of our expenditures.

Let me pull out a few extra things:- 20% of our budget (give or take a few hundred BILLION) is payments on our national debt.- We are spending $20 Billion a month in Iraq and Afganistan- Social security devours another large chunk of our annual budget (the people living off SS money are mostly elderly)- We pay for our tax cuts in deficit spending.- We refuse to pay for new experiements and satellites to understand our world more, but just *have* to cut billions in taxes.

Put simply, our priorities, on both sides of the aisle, are jacked up. Its more about playing to the lowest common denominator (or as I call it, the "dumbest possible voter") in an effort to get re-elected. Logic and sense have been thrown out the window - its all about ME ME ME now.

Pay off the national debt, and we CAN drop taxes by 20%. Or we can spend that money to further our understanding of our world (especially the weather and climate), and ourselves. But that likely won't happen in our lifetimes.

BtnTx:Your points are well made and I agree to all of them. I just don't think the government has all of the answers to everything;

They rarely have the answer to anything, when they get involved they usually have a negative effect on the situation, and often these effects have long unforeseen consequences.

The government's number one priority is being "democrat" or "republican" When "THEY" say we are non-partisan, that is the biggest bunch of crap I ever heard (I hear Nancy Polesi , and I also hear Ohio's John Boehner crying in the backround..........Hell NO, no such thing as non-partisan.And it won't get better until the political children grow up and think of the people and not themselves....

Chicklit:Words like 'all' or 'every' are a smokescreen which make for overly simplistic soundbites used to manipulate people. Why think anything through when it's all made so perfectly clear and simple?

(my quote link is currently broken - oh I am too stupid to know how to use it)Ok you win as you have me completely confused as I am the guy who just throws words around as I have no brain; I am out and will post no longer as I obviously don't have the IQ to compete with the intellectually elite that are on this blog; Scotty: Beam me Up!

I don't think banning SUV's would be best for Paris, but I could see limitting traffic in certain areas of the city for more pedestrian friendly travel might be useful. Similarly, I don't think we (the US) should spend more on transit to widen interstates. What's the point of adding another lane if the conjestion is still the same amount of cars??? This just leads to another lane filled with cars and the traffic column moved up by maybe a few miles. We would be better off by making a separate national mass transit system that is independent of the main industrial rail system. However, all of this is a pipe dream until we get rid of our debt so we can fund NOAA/Science research and stuff again. :)

Thanks MichaelSTL, it's something to look in to. I'll have to check those papers out in my free time.

Another thing someone pointed out to me this week: The planets in the solar system are heating up (even Pluto) at a similar pace as Earth. I can't confirm this yet, but it would be interesting if that were the case.

I know there's people with crazy theories of a brown dwarf star or companion star to our sun that may be closer than we theorize. Anyways, that's more sci-fi talk I guess, and not related to the topic at hand. lol

Quoting MichaelSTL:Of course, the past 12 years have seen "United States Cooling" (some "European Cooling" as well):

PS: 1998 is of course a cherry pick; if I used 1997 or 1999 instead, it would show more warming.

At least 1998 and 2010 are both El Niño years--using these starting/ending points reduces the variation due to ENSO effects. Choosing 1997 or 1999 as your starting point and ending with 2010 would show warming primarily due to ENSO variation.

jeff713 you really picked a weak strawman argument there. You picked basic needs that no normal person minds paying taxes for. What you fail to address are the ridiculous spending deficits that send billions of dollars to countries that hate us, build bridges to nowhere, pay kick-backs to lawmakers for votes, send millions of dollars to dead end projects and so on and so on..

Please, if you are going to call someone out and act so self-righteous, at least be honest about the subject you are discussing.

You just cherry-picked the easiest thing to defend and went with it. If you were trying to make some kind of point here, you definitely weakened your position.

If it is perfectly reasonable to be against high taxes, especially when those tax dollars are ill used and fail to stay within a clear and defined budget.

Chicklit......You got me re-thinking about lake pollution.I grew up in Ohio and when I was a small girl our family used to go to "Grande Lake St. Mary's" I now live in south Florida but for the last few years I have been keeping up on the blight of this beautiful lake....Due to farm run-off this 13,000 acre lake is totally inhabitable by fish and the beautiful homes surrounding it.....The lake is totally worthless....This is a people "Faux Pas" and we knew it was coming but wait..let's wait until we can no longer enjoy it because we are still making money off of the recreation...The last I read ...No boating, No fishing, No swimming........I say this at least once a week to my friends........IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY... Please google "Grande Lake St. Mary's" and see what the reality is with the world now